Anyone interested in some intellectual exercise?

In case anyone is still interested there have been some updates in the thread on Japanese ship yards over on the IJN forum. The last couple relate to repair of one of the carrirers if she could have been towed back from Midway.

 

Speaking outside the simulation, It would be reasonable to continue development of a prototype, even though I really hate the expence, since it will go nowhere.

I can support the diversion of limited amounts of our R&D budget for design work upon a workable prototype, but it would have to prove to be a exceptional airframe and we would need considerable leeway in our production budget compared to what we currently possess.

I would very much like to hear the comments of other members of the council.

Prime Minister.

 

lwd:

I will look for this thread, but if you are able to point it out to me I would be grateful. I'd like to see what I can either confirm or correct in my own estimate.

Honorable Prime Minister,

I too feel that "strategic" bombing is a tacit likely to avail us little. If we are to develop a heavier bomber than those already in our arsenal I believe the aim should be to allow us to retain a bomber with roughly the capabilities of our G4M but with improved protection, and the Ki-67, which we might alternately designate the G5M, seems an ideal path to this. What is the current status of this project? Will the addition of additional crew armor and perhaps some kind of self-sealing fuel tank significantly impact its performance or are these already accounted for in this design? The numbers look quite hopeful.

Sincerely,
Adm. Noka

 

Admiral Noka, we have plans for continued development of the G4M series, and will allocate sufficient resources to expedite it. Increased defensive armament should be fielded almost immediately. Self-sealing tanks and armor protection will be our next priority and implemented as soon as we have engines with sufficiently increased perfomance to support the additional weight. (Historic G4M3 series).
The KI-67 (we can designate it the G5M for Navy service) is to be designed with increased defensive armament and protection from the start.

 

The eve of war may not be the time to invest resources in interesting projects with no immediate application. I'm reminded of our discussion of inline engines, a promising technology if we had a few years to work out the bugs and familiar our people with it, but it did not appear likely to pay off in the time frame we are concerned with (can we end a sentence with a preposition in Japanese?). Actually operating four-engine bombers is a major investment of resources, especially fuel. Do we have missions they could accomplish that cannot be done with existing types, long-range twin-engine aircraft or flying boats? True strategic bombing of cities or industries is out of the question in a war with Britain or the US; even most Russian industry is beyond our reach.

We noted earlier the difficulty of adapting land planes for carrier operations, but for purely land-based aircraft common airframes might be practical for both army and navy.

 

To me the 4 engine bomers do not have a bigger value. At China and rest of asia we don´t need them and for our plannings on island they are to vulnerable and would need a fighter escort. So they will only eat up resources in money material and men and not only during their production. A twin engine bomber with a good payload a usable armor and a good possibility to defend themselves will have a much higher value to me. Find one and we can make changes at them to make them fit for different purposes.

Kind Regards

Gen. Nishio

 

Is it too late to apply for and ambassadorship in Europe? I also wish to live Ambassador Kourei's "rough" life of wine, women, and song while touring the luxurious European "pleasure centers"...ahem, "cities." Regretfully, his "new" information is nothing we have not learned during the course of our own air war in China. Shanghai, Nanking, Hangchou, Hankow, Canton, Chungking, etc. Their location is different, but the effects have been then same as those in Europe - had not the Europeans been to busy condemning our actions(which, ironically, they are now practicing on each other) perhaps they would have learned this lesson far earlier. Maybe a year long tour of the Japanese front lines in China will refocus Ambassador Kourei's attention to the matters at hand.
The above is not meant to be antagonistic towards TiredOldSoldier, only an in-character response pointing out that this fact was already known to the Japanese

While several Army & Navy officers here see the 4-engine bomber as either a "terror bomber" or and "industrial" bomber. It is in fact neither. The purpose of a long-range 4-engine bomber allows Japan to safely close the gap that exists between our island holdings in the central Pacific. At present, this gap is barely,and in some cases, not, covered by our long-range G4M Rikko bomber. The development of a long-range 4-engine bomber will allow us to comfortably close this gap, and give our extant air bases the capability to mutually support each other - rather than simply act as "gas stations" for the bombers on their way to the point-of-contact with the enemy. The proposal has been made to make the Rikko more survivable, but this will come at the cost of the bomber's range, thereby exacerbating the the problem and isolating our Pacific island bases from this mutual support. The proposed Ki-67 will still have this problem with range, compounded by the fact that it achieves the range it does have by carrying a much smaller bomb load(1,102 lbs/500 kg).

We must face the fact that we will be engaging the Americans in open conflict sooner rather than later. By waiting until there is an "immediate" application for a 4-engined bomber, it is already far, far too late to begin designing one.

 

You make a very good argument Admiral Takao for a 4 engined, long range heavy bomber. I admit, I too did not see the necessity of building one as strategic bombing against population centers or enemy industrial infrastructure was not a part of our strategic planning.
There has been a good deal of excellent information put forth here recently, excellent, well considered opinions. If it meets with the the Prime Minister's approval I would like to briefly have the Council discuss an operational air doctrine and production plan. Once we have agreed on the key underlying parameters which will guide our warfighting and production. I will briefly recap the changes we have made to Japanese Naval Aviation assets, proposed operational doctrine, development plan, and production outline. Then ask for approval and modifications to our plan. We can then address the IJA aircraft needs which we have as yet to discuss.

 

Dear Col. Bobimoto,

the needs of IJA Aircrafts are, and this is my personal opinion, like follows:

fighter aircraft
recon aircraft, long range and short range, like the german Fieseler Storch
fighterbombers , light and fast ones and twin-engine heavy ones
twin engine bombers, well armed and armoured, for all weather
transport aircraft for freight and paratroopers, some of them maybe not bad to have as seaplanes
and last but not least gliders

if any of the IJA or you have some better thoughts, please let me know.

Thank you.

Kind Regards

Gen. Nishio

 

As I see it we need two basic fighters, one that is carrier capable and can be used on the various island bases in the Pacific. It is a difficult balance between survivability and range. The second one is a fighter that is suitable for the India front. Since range is not quite as important, survivability and the ability to fight allied bombers is critical. As far as the islands we have to be prudent in medium and heavy bombers since not all bases will have the capacity to hold one. Because the primary targets will be ships and airbases we don't need heavy bombs, but a torpedo capacity is important. (I am not counting skip bombing since that has not yet been done) I personally prefer the TB since it has greater effect on ships. Our dive bomber has a liability since it only carries a 500# bomb which is not effective against a lot of armor.
I also think we need to consider the area we are defending. I see we have 4 areas to defend. the NE pacific which only has a couple of islands, Marcus and Wake) and the primary need is for long range recon. The second is the Marshalls and the area to the south west. There are numerous islands, but most are not suitable for heavy bombers and have limited size. This area needs to be supplemented by KB to withstand a sustained attack. The third area is the south pac and new Guinea. This area has numerous bases and can hold all types and so offers the best place for mutual support. The one draw back is that Australia offers an excellent base for the Americans and this is where a good bomber can help in suppressing airbases. The final is the Marrianas and the Carolinas, the capacity for large bombers is good, but the number of bases is limited.

 

Excellent Colonel. by all means let us put the finishing touches on Naval aircraft plans and construction, then moving on to IJA aircraft plans.

 

Yes yes, we are always the last..... PMSL

 

Well General, I like to get the siily stuff out of the way before we get truly serious about things!

On a more practical side, The Army will need more types over all I think and we will be doubling up for our Allied Air Forces who will be getting your, and possibly some of the Navy's cast off equipment.

While General Terauchi's desire to employ two types of Fighter aircraft appeals to me greatly, I fear we cannot get away with such.

I suspect we will need to field 5 to 6 different types to fill all our missions.

A General purpose Land based Fighter. Effective at low to medium altitudes, optimized for Air superiority and well balanced in design. Our Primary Land based fighter for both services.

A General purpose Carrier Based Fighter with the same specification as above, but Naval service only.

A Fighter Bomber with enhanced ruggedness to act as both a point defence fighter and Support aircraft for the Army (think P-47, Typhoon) Army use primarily.

A High altitude Interceptor for defense of Industry and other targets of Strategic Bombers. Primarily Army Use, Home Islands, China and Korea, but possible Naval use in defence of Naval anchorages like Truk and Singapore.

A land based Night Fighter, probable twin engine, hopefully derived from either a Light bomber or fast Reccon plane currently in service. Primarily Army use, but possibly Naval use as well.

Lastly, and I am not keen on this but we may have some need for a "Seaplane Fighter". If we do then please let us use one of the types mentioned above as the airframe with floats added, rather than a completely new airframe.

The order I have listed would indicate the production levels of each type, Land based GP Fighter the most and Night Fighter & Seaplane Fighter least.

 

Thank you honorable Prime Minister, we will discuss the serious topics by a cigar and a good glass of our enemys s well mad drink, the scotch whiskey!

Indeed i forgot to mention the nightfighters. Why can´t we make a fighter aircraft that is able to fullfill the most of our wishes? One that is able to operate in higher altitudes as well as in lower. And take it and try to convert this type into a nightfighter too? all we need is the right engine a cabine for high altitudes and the space to equip it with radar technology?

 

A General purpose land based fighter might be able to operate well both at low and high altitudes, but I fear that our current types cannot do this at this time, and it is often unwise to ask any one type to do too many things. As to a Night Fighter, the need for a airborne radar and operator seem to call for a twin engine type craft.

From the start I have advocated reducing our various Aircraft types to the absolute minimum to ease production, but there is a limit to what we can pair down to. I will settle for both services using the same plane for similar tasks.

Prime Minister

 

Quickly.

steverodgers801,

Range is always important, it not only means how far you can fly...but also for how long. This leads us to "Loiter time" - how long a given aircraft can stay in the target area. It does no good to have your fighterbomber fly to somewhere in India and have to drop his bomb shortly after getting to the target area(whether has has found a suitable target or not).

The Aichi D3A's 815lb/370kg bomb load is not that much of a liability. The 250kg bomb is good enough against all warships but battleships. Against a battleship, the Aichi D3A is only meant for flak suppression, not actually sinking one. After all, you take out several of the battleship's AA guns, and they our ripe targets for our torpedo bombers. Nevertheless, work is already progressing on the D3A's successor, the D4Y Suisei - which can carry a maximum of 560 kg of bombs. The hope is to have this new divebomber operational by the middle of 1942.

 

I think a good place to start is with the Prime Minister's statement:

We can build upon this.
-First production and development should be considered two seperate areas. We need to focus production on as few a number of models and types as possible to meet the mission types/capabilities we determine that need to be filled based upon our doctrine. We need to define our doctrine in order determine what capabilities our commanders feel are necessary for successful prosecution of the war.
-Second, is research and development. We have two areas we need to address here. 1.) Continued development of the types we adopt in order to keep maximize their capabilities and keep them from becoming obselete for as long as possible. 2.) General research and development, where we will spend money and resources on developing follow-on types, understanding that many of them will never move on to adoption and full scale production. This is important because technologies, materials and general advancements will be made through this R & D. Much of what is developed here, while not ever resulting in an operational aircraft will lead to advancements that can be incorporated into our operational types. I favor allowing our major aircraft producers to retain seperate R & D facilities, at least Mitsubishi, Nakajima and Kawanishi. I would suggest we require them to consolidate them into one major facilitie each and the establishment of a military board to review the technological data produced and share any advances in technology, materials or techniques with other manufacturers. If our Ambassador to the European powers can so arrange it, I would like technical missions sent to Germany to cooperate in general research and to examine captured allied aircraft and technology. I have no problem examining, back engineering and/or copying any allied technology we might find useful.
Your thoughts?

 

When I said range I was thinking of sacrificing some of the Zero's extreme range for better survivability. As far the DB I would point out the difference in our attacks on the Yorktown verses the Us on our carriers. The Akagi took one well placed heavy bomb and the Yorktown was able to restore operations after hits from our DB. Sorry if this is hindsighting.

 

Midway highlights the poor design qualities of Japanese carriers, as well as, some problems specific to Akagi. Not to mention the fact that there was a gassed and armed air strike nestled in her hangar. Don't forget that under similar conditions, two 250kg(estimated to be one GP and one SAP) bombs almost sank the USS Franklin.

 

My response and rebuttals to the Prime Minister's statement is in red text.



I suspect we will need to field 5 to 6 different types to fill all our missions.

A General purpose Land based Fighter. Effective at low to medium altitudes at all altitudes, optimized for Air superiority and well balanced in design. Our Primary Land based fighter for both services the Army.

Any of our "new" fighters will need to be effective at all altitudes. Given that our enemies will also be designing "new" aircraft to combat the ones we have at present. These "new" enemy aircraft will, in all likelihood, be superior to what we have now. Since our current aircraft are effective at low and medium altitudes, the "new" enemy aircraft should be expected to be effective at low, medium, and high altitudes. As such, our enemies will just "stack" their aircraft higher than ours and dive down to attack them at their leisure.

The reason this fighter will be specific to the Army is discussed in the following.

A General purpose Carrier Based Fighter with the same specification as above, but Naval service only.

This will be the Navy's primary fighter. It will be able to operate from both land and carrier equally. By doing so, any carrier-based losses can be replaced quite quickly from any near-by island air base. Further, it can extend the range of any land-based fighter by allowing them to use the aircraft carrier as a "stepping stone" to wherever they are going. It will also facilitate the use of allowing land-based naval fighters to act as CAP for any near-by carriers, while the carrier's fighters proceed to escort the carrier's strike aircraft.(this will likely prove more useful in the southern Pacific area where air bases will be more plentiful and could prove useful if our carriers are operating in defense of any of our atolls with near-by airfields.

The down side is carrier qualifying all single engine naval fighter pilots for this to be effective. Although instituting a rotation policy to rotate squadrons between carriers and an "R&R" island defense period might offset this.

A Fighter Bomber with enhanced ruggedness to act as both a point defence fighter and Support aircraft for the Army (think P-47, Typhoon) Army use primarily.

This can very likely be done away with. Any of our "new" fighter designs should be sufficiently rugged enough to act as "ground support" and all will likely be able to be equipped with bomb shackles. At the moment, the development of high-horsepower engines necessary for such a type has be stymied with a myriad of problems. By the time these problems will be solved our need for a P-47/Hawker Typhoon will have passed, as we will most certainly be on the defensive against our enemies.

A High altitude Interceptor for defense of Industry and other targets of Strategic Bombers. Primarily Army Use, Home Islands, China and Korea, but possible Naval use in defence of Naval anchorages like Truk and Singapore. for multi-service use to defend industrial centers/cities, airfields, and naval anchorages.

With certainty, the Navy will be making heavy use of such a type when the United States decides to enter the fray. Especially in the central Pacific where the extreme ranges preclude the use of escorts. The United States will make every effort to obliterate our existing airfields with their B-17 and the new B-24. Once they manage to cripple a island chain's air fields, that chain will soon fall into their hands.

A land based Night Fighter, probable twin engine, hopefully derived from either a Light bomber or fast Reccon plane currently in service. Primarily Army use, but possibly Naval use as well. multi-service use later in the war. With certainty the United States will achieve aircraft capable of being most effective at night, and our life-line to the outer reaches of our empire is our airfields. Should they manage to break any "link" in that chain, the rest of the airfields further down the chain will be cut off. Should the United States Navy develop the capability to equip carrier aircraft with radar, this threat becomes even more pronounced.

Lastly, and I am not keen on this but we may have some need for a "Seaplane Fighter". If we do then please let us use one of the types mentioned above as the airframe with floats added, rather than a completely new airframe.

The A6M2-N fits this need just fine.

The order I have listed would indicate the production levels of each type, Land based GP Fighter the most and Night Fighter & Seaplane Fighter least.